From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1803 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2009 13:19:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 1794 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Mar 2009 13:19:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:19:01 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD25B10D9A; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:18:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AC9F10B26; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:18:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LgfNg-0004NJ-Pl; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:18:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:19:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] catch syscall -- try 4 -- Architecture-independent part Message-ID: <20090309131856.GA16796@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1232929831.26873.22.camel@miki> <200901260053.06295.pedro@codesourcery.com> <1232945747.26873.27.camel@miki> <1232989355.26873.39.camel@miki> <20090201193306.GJ4597@caradoc.them.org> <1235561189.14363.20.camel@miki> <20090227221133.GA12904@caradoc.them.org> <1236539758.28243.6.camel@miki> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1236539758.28243.6.camel@miki> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00110.txt.bz2 On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 04:15:58PM -0300, Sérgio Durigan Júnior wrote: > > > > > +# Fills the struct syscall (passed as argument) with the corresponding > > > > > +# system call represented by syscall_number. > > > > > +M:void:get_syscall_by_number:int syscall_number, struct syscall *s:syscall_number, s > > > > > + > > > > > +# Fills the struct syscall (passed as argument) with the corresponding > > > > > +# system call represented by syscall_name. > > > > > +M:void:get_syscall_by_name:const char *syscall_name, struct syscall *s:syscall_name, s > > > > > + > > > > > +# Returns the array containing the syscall names for the architecture. > > > > > +M:const char **:get_syscall_names:void: > > > > > > > > If every target is going to use XML for this, these three do not need > > > > to be gdbarch methods and the support code can move from linux-tdep.c > > > > to xml-syscall.c. > > > > > > As far as I understood (from our discussion a few months ago), not every > > > target is supposed to use the XML for syscalls. That's specially true > > > for embedded systems and/or architectures for which the XML file is > > > missing (for some obscure reason, don't know). That's why I thought it > > > would be better not to generalize. > > > > I don't think this is a big deal. If it is, we can handle it the same > > way as for target-descriptions: pre-compile them into GDB. > > So I won't modify anything, ok? Sorry, I was unclear - I still suggest that you drop the extra gdbarch methods and rearrange. There's nothing Linux-specific about what you have. > > Not sure that the flag exists any more, but you're trying to avoid it > > when called by startup_inferior. I suppose you could use the > > inferior_created observer (not new_inferior! The distinction is not > > too clear in the manual but that one is too early). The problem is, > > again, that this flag needs to be per-inferior. > > > > Pedro, any thoughts? > > What do you mean by "Not sure that the flag exists any more"? Also, I'm > waiting for Pedro's reply. There used to be a global variable for this, but I believe it was removed. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery